Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. v. Pitsicalis
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:17-cv-01927
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 52
Experience Hendrix v. Kurt S. Adler, Inc.: Judge Engelmayer entered a consent permanent injunction protecting plaintiffs’ Jimi Hendrix trademarks against Kurt S. Adler, Inc.
Experience Hendrix, L.L.C., Authentic Hendrix, LLC, and Kurt S. Adler, Inc. are directly affected by the stipulated judgment and permanent injunction. The order preserves the plaintiffs’ claims against the other defendants.
What happened
In Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. v. Pitsicalis, Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. and Authentic Hendrix, LLC sued multiple defendants and later reached a stipulated judgment with Kurt S. Adler, Inc. Adler acknowledged that the plaintiffs exclusively owned the trademark rights identified in the judgment.
The court entered final judgment against Kurt S. Adler, Inc. and ordered a permanent injunction. The parties waived an appeal, agreed to pay their own costs and attorney fees, and agreed that the judgment would not release the plaintiffs’ claims against the other defendants.
Judge Engelmayer retained jurisdiction to enforce the injunction and oversee Adler’s continuing discovery obligations. If the injunction is breached, the order provides for reimbursement of the plaintiffs’ enforcement costs, including actual attorney fees, and $2,500 in liquidated damages, without barring additional damages and costs.
The detailed version
- Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. v. Pitsicalis · No. 1:17-cv-01927
- Paul Engelmayer
- Dec. 13, 2019
Background
Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. and Authentic Hendrix, LLC filed the action against Andrew Pitsicalis, Leon Hendrix, Kurt S. Adler, Inc., and other defendants. The order states that the plaintiffs filed a complaint and several amended complaints. The judgment concerns Kurt S. Adler, Inc. specifically.
Adler acknowledged that the plaintiffs were the exclusive owners of trademark rights in the use of the names “Jimi Hendrix,” “Jimi,” and “Hendrix,” and variations of those names, identified as the “Hendrix Trademarks” in Exhibit A. The order also states that the plaintiffs waived independent claims against Adler’s clients, customers, and manufacturers concerning Adler-created Jimi Hendrix products, while preserving the scope of the injunction.
Court’s Action
The court entered final judgment against Kurt S. Adler, Inc. and ordered a stipulated permanent injunction. The provided text does not make the specific restrictions in the injunction legible, so the exact prohibited conduct cannot be stated reliably beyond the order’s reference to the permanent injunction and the trademark rights identified in Exhibit A.
The order provided that:
- The court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the injunction and address Adler’s continuing discovery obligations. - The parties waived appeal from the injunction. - Each party would bear its own costs and attorney fees. - The injunction would bind and benefit the parties and their successors and assigns. - The judgment would not waive or release the plaintiffs’ claims against the other defendants. - If the injunction were breached and the plaintiffs had to enforce their rights, the order required reimbursement of their enforcement costs, including actual attorney fees, and payment of $2,500 in liquidated damages. The order stated that the plaintiffs could still seek additional damages and costs.
Effect of the Judgment
The judgment resolved the claims addressed by the stipulation between the plaintiffs and Kurt S. Adler, Inc. It did not release the plaintiffs’ claims against the other defendants. The parties’ written consent stated that they waived written findings of fact and conclusions of law and agreed that the stipulated final judgment and permanent injunction were final and unappealable.
The supplied text also contains lengthy, apparently unrelated United States Patent and Trademark Office materials. Those materials are not treated as part of the court’s ruling here. The date printed in the judgment is unclear in the provided text, so the date in the metadata header follows the supplied case information.
Read the full 52-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.